These are but a few recent examples of climate extremes amplified by human-caused global warming. These extreme events will only come with greater frequency and intensity as the planet continues to heat up.

The only way to curb these impacts is to cut the carbon pollution that’s intensifying them. As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away. Only by admitting we have a problem and taking steps to address it can we avoid a catastrophic outcome.

Atmospheric radicalization? Does that mean it’s going to start voting for communists?

No, the atmosphere is going to start shooting up Christmas parties, gay nightclubs, military recruiting offices, military bases, etc. And setting off bombs in public places. But all that is distinctly and irrevocably different from “The Atmosphere of Peace.” And it’s all our fault, of course.

RAH: “What more proof does one need that this is all driven by a political agenda than the sustained bombardment of one new “catch phrase” after another?”
Well said. Radicalization cannot actually apply to a physical phenomena, but that never stopped politicians before. It used to stop scientists….

When (if the Dems have a long run) the US becomes European-like with “those” immigrants, then all worry about “Atmospheric radicalization” will be mute. Of course the rest will be obliged to pay homage to a new radicalized justice system called Sharia and the country will be easy targets for Russia/China and/or have severe internal conflicts (except for SJW’s/Snowflakes who will simply roll over).
“Children in the fourth-year class are said to have been “forced” by teachers to recite the Muslim prayer aloud, alternating line by line between German and Arabic.”http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/26/children-forced-recite-allahu-akhbar/

These far-left zealots have a serious mental problem. To think a crazy phrase like Atmospheric Radicalization is sort of magic potion that will (appeal?) to people, is remarkable. Actual science is the way to convince people, not political science.

Dana is not very good with marketing either. Changing the terms often plants the idea among the target audience that there is no depth or consistency behind the pitchman. And of course the regular observers already know that.

To a chemist, the phrase “Atmospheric Radicalization” can mean only one thing.
The concentration of gas phase free radicals is increasing. (a free radical is a chemical species which has one or more unpaired electrons. They are highly reactive and unstable.)
It would be most interesting for them to make this claim. It would be even more interesting to see how they came to such a conclusion.

Otherwise it just means the atmosphere has decided to vote Marxist/Leninist. Another interesting claim.

Oxygen is a diradical, anyway. So the atmosphere is full of diradicals. It exists in two states, singlet oxygen and triplet oxygen, the latter is the most common and has two degenerate MOs (molecular orbitals) So not only it is a diradical, but also a degenerated.

Nitrogen is the only atmospheric gas that hasn´t been demonized yet. 100 green points to the one who demonizes it.

The ultimate goal is the carbon tax. Once in place it will be used to regulate and our lives will be based on our carbon footprint, including population control in the end. If a corp is considered a person rules passed for them extend to us too right? Too Dark? How else do you describe people who deny evolution to the point of denying the Earth’s long history of climate change. Their perfect snapshot will continue to change because no matter what they do they have no control whatsoever of the climate, and never will. Worse a large portion of the population does not believe and that is killing them.

Denying science won’t make CO2 drive the climate
Denying science won’t make feedback produce 4 times the power said to cause it
Denying science won’t make the conflict of interest at the IPCC go away
Denying science won’t make the pollution of science by agenda acceptable

( Mirriam-Webster) Full Definition of radical
1
: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as
a (1) : of or growing from the root of a plant (2) : growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground
b : of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root
c : of or relating to a mathematical root
d : designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue
2
: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
4
slang : excellent, cool

I’m sure he’s going for 3a and 3b but I think 3c and 3d are closer to the truth.

I’m getting a bit long in the tooth myself.
One of my younger co-workers (who was taking a course on “Black History”) was explaining to me why “blacks” prefer to be called “african-americans”.
She said it it was because a white journalist came up with the term to replace “negroe”.
I’m old enough to remember the original Black Panthers and I’m sure they didn’t choose that name because some white told them too!

PS As I understand it, “pansgender” is slowly replacing “bisexual” in some circles.
“A rose by any other name is still….”

It is about time we just kept repeating back to them, “Nothing has changed in the weather” because nothing really has changed. The weather is just all within the natural range of weather that has been experienced since weather recording started.

2 record high temps across the world today, and 4 close to the record cold today. That is actually much lower for both of these numbers than one would expect just based on the statistical probabilities.

Closing comment about people not being worried about climate issues was prescient. I opened up this article on my cell phone and the ad that popped up was for leasing a flagrantly large and un-green 2016 SUV.

Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have occasionally blamed the internet for the radicalization of Muslims. Perhaps the internet is also to blame for the radicalization of the atmosphere. I have the feeling, though, that Nuccittelli would blame climate change for the radicalization of both. After all, to him there is nothing under our yellow sun that super CO2 is incapable of doing, unless it is exposed to the kryptonite of green energy.

The sad part is that as these idiots beak off, the governments of the world listen. The sad truth is that without CO2 life on earth would cease to exist. Yet our governments want to tax it and eradicate it. I truly feel that our human society is doomed :(

It’s all in how well it’s packaged, represented and defined, as is any manufactured product designed to be sold to the public. You must first establish a need, then foster a desire and motivation to buy.
With a little more time and effort, and possibly some top notch marketing help, there’s little doubt they can get the job done.

“As any member of Alcoholics Anonymous knows, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away”

Well, I believe we’ve been brought to a brand new low; skeptics of the AGW hypothesis are now likened to the chemically dependent. It was scary enough when we were simply “the other camp”. Now we’re clinical, in medical terms.